United Nations: Liberalism’s Strong Arm for Abortion July 27, 2007Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Bill Clinton, Constitution, deception, Executive order, foreign aid, globalism, international law, NGOs, presidents, United Nations, United States.
The old saying “what a web we weave” is certainly applicable to the United Nations (UN) and NGOs like the Center for Reproductive Rights. They weave a web with all nations and peoples as their prey. More precisely, they prey on those people they intend never will have a chance to exist.
In a recent Friday Fax article, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute author Samantha Singson reported that Netherlands was threatening to cut off aid to Nicaragua if the Nicaraguan government didn’t repeal its new abortion law. Singson also reported that the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women ordered Nicaragua to review its “laws relating to abortion with a view to removing punitive provisions.” In May, The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the new law. According to Hilary White of Life Site News, two UN lawyers had been arguing against the new law before Nicaragua’s Supreme Court. Dr. Rafael Cabrera, an obstetrician and president of the pro-life group Anprovida, said, “The UN officials had no right to alter the sovereign will of the citizens of the countries they are supposedly serving. 290,000 Nicaraguans signed a petition asking for the law prohibiting abortion. The law was approved by a massive majority, without a single vote against it.” While the UN denies it coerces nations into allowing abortions, its lawyers, NGOs, and supported family planning organizations are manipulating governments into creating laws contrary to the will of most people.
The deceptive practice of the UN is also evident in the fund raising campaign of the UN Population Fund. While claiming its funds are not used to promote abortion, the latest State of the World Population report emphasizes the need for safe abortions, which all Americans know means passing laws like Roe v. Wade. Steven W. Mosher, President of the non-profit Population Research Institute (PRI), is widely recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the population question. In a interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, Mosher said,
“Safe abortion is just a euphemism for legal abortion. The United Nations Population Fund would like to see abortion legalized worldwide, including in the 114 countries where there are significant restrictions placed on abortion, and it works to that end. Now it has occasionally made clear in documents its own pro-abortion stance, but it likes to work with affiliates. It likes to affiliate with other groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation….” (Emphasis added.)
The UN Population Fund also likes working with the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), previously known as Center for Reproductive Laws and Policy (CRLP). The CRR is a vital part of the UN’s global efforts to force all nations to implement Roe v. Wade like abortions laws. That must be why the UN Population Fund is among CRR’s financial donors, according to its latest annual report.
Concerning the UN Population Fund, Mosher also told a Inside the Vatican magazine interviewer:
“Make no mistake about the fact that this is an organization that is devoted to aborting and sterilizing and contracepting as many women as possible. In fact, its own publications make clear that when it is talking about reproductive health, what it is principally concerned about is making sure that women have access to contraception, sterilization and abortion. They measure reproductive health by the percentage of women who have access to abortion, sterilization and contraception.”
Why are UN efforts to coerce Nicaragua into conformity with its abortion policies important to Americans? One reason was mentioned in a previous article entitled Why is Congress trying to supply the world with contraceptives. In that article, it was briefly explained how governments structure their foreign aid to bolster their nation’s economies and to shape public policy of recipient nations. Expanding on the issue, Rep. Ron Paul wrote,
“Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments, it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy, for example. The ‘aid’ money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins ‘democratic’ elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
“Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government, there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.”
Foreign aid is a globalist tool used to force nations to adopt public policies like abortion often against their people’s will, which is the case in Nicaragua. It is also the case wherever the laws of liberals dominate, and that is the second reason why the United Nations’ coercive strategy is important for Americans to understand.
In Could U.N. Trump U.S. Constitution? – United Nation’s stance on abortion rights,” Diana Ray explains how the UN backed Center for Reproductive Rights organization is seeking to create internationally binding abortion law through a legal convention called customary international law. As defined in Customary International Humanitarian Law, customary international law, unlike treaty law, is not written. To prove that a certain rule is customary one has to show that it is reflected in official state practice and that there exists a conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law. The CRR filed a lawsuit in federal court against President Bush contesting opposition to abortion incorporated in United States (US) foreign policy and citing international treaties and agreements to support the case. The CRR argued that those treaties and agreements prove an international customary law exists. The CRR claimed, the Supreme Court could no longer change its mind on abortion because international customary law demands it. By the US Senate’s ratification of treaties legalizing abortion and by other nation’s ratification of similar treaties, the CRR contended such treaties creates internal customary law binding on the US. Bingham Young University professor of law Richard Wilkins and others point to this lawsuit as the first hard evidence that liberal activists intend to use customary international law to try to force nations worldwide, including the US, to recognize rights inconsistent with their own domestic laws.
There is another way the UN can trump the US Constitution. A president using executive order could trump the legislative process to enforce UN policy contrary to the US Constitution. When a president issues an executive order, Congress must review and reject it within 30 days or the executive order becomes federal law. The authority to issue executive orders is not mentioned in the US Constitution, but federal courts have acknowledged its legitimacy for procedural issues within the executive branch and for certain types of national emergencies such as war and serious natural disasters. This type of extra-constitutional power has been a problem because of abuse. Past presidents have manipulated the system to enact public laws without legislative deliberations through the executive order.
Bill Clinton was such a president. According to international attorney James L. Hirsen, one of Clinton’s first official acts as president was to create an executive order to end a previous rule prohibiting federal funding to family planning clinics supporting abortion. In his book Government by Decree, Hirsen sites another executive order called Presidential Directive 25. It gave Clinton the authority to place our military under the authority of a foreign commander. Before creating the Directive, Clinton had military personnel surveyed about their views and attitudes. One of the more interesting questions was whether they would be willing to fire on US citizens if they refused to give up their non-sporting types of weapons. More threatening to Constitutional law was Executive Order 13083. This order in effect annulled the Tenth Amendment protecting sovereign authority of states. Hirsen makes a very important observation about Executive Order 13095, which was a response to heated dissent made by state governors; Clinton’s order suspended the previous order but it did not revoke it. That means, in the future, a like-minded President will be able to enforce it. Could he and Hillary have plans to one day invoke Executive Order 13083? Further encroachment on our constitutional rights came with Executive Order 13061. Through this order, Clinton repackaged the failed Heritage Areas Act, which violated property rights and created precedence for future violations. Through a series of executive orders, Clinton did the same thing to implement the UN World Heritage Site program and the Rio Earth Summit’s Biodiversity Treaty, which Congress had rejected. The most damaging of all executive orders adjudicated by Clinton was 13107 entitled “Implementation of Human Rights Treaties.” This executive order was designed to implement not just ratified but unratified treaties, according to Hirsen. It was also designed to ensure all treaties conformed to UN policy. Clinton’s abuse of the executive order proves that the US Constitution can be trump by the UN. All the UN needs is a President loyal to its agenda and not to the Constitution and the process of law.
James L. Hirsen, Government By Decree: From President to Dictator thorough Executive Order (Lafayette, IN: Huntington House, 1999): 17-39. This short book is available at Amazon.com. After I had completed this article, I came across an article at NewMax.com that might be of interest. The article was written by Miguel A. Faria Jr. and entitled Dismantling Clinton’s Scaffold of Executive Order.